2015 ORS
92.100¹

Approval of plat by city or county surveyor

• procedures

• approval by county assessor and county governing body

• fees

(1)(a) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, before a subdivision or partition plat that covers land within the corporate limits of a city may be recorded, the county surveyor must approve the plat.

(b) Notwithstanding ORS 92.170 (Amending recorded plat), the governing body of the city may, by resolution or order, designate the city surveyor to serve in lieu of the county surveyor or, with concurrence of the county surveyor, a contract surveyor to act as city surveyor.

(c) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, if the land is outside the corporate limits of any city, the subdivision or partition plat must be approved by the county surveyor before it is recorded.

(d) All subdivision plats must also be approved by the county assessor and the governing body of the county in which the property is located before recording.

(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this subsection, a county may provide by ordinance for the approval of subdivision plats by:

(A) The county assessor; and

(B)(i) The chairperson of the governing body of the county;

(ii) The vice chairperson of the governing body of the county; or

(iii) A person designated in lieu of the chairperson or vice chairperson.

(f)(A) A partition plat is subject only to the approval of the city or county surveyor unless:

(i) The partition plat includes a dedication of land for public road purposes; or

(4) Before a subdivision or partition plat prepared by the county surveyor in a private capacity may be recorded, the plat must be approved in accordance with subsection (2) or (3) of this section, whichever is applicable, by the surveyor of a county other than the county in which the land is located and who has been designated by the county surveyor.

(5) For performing the service described:

(a) In subsection (2) of this section, the county surveyor shall collect from the subdivider or declarant a fee of $100 plus $5 for each lot contained in the subdivision. The governing body of a city or county may establish a higher fee by resolution or order.

(b) In subsection (3) of this section, the county surveyor shall collect from the partitioner or declarant a fee to be established by the governing body.

(c) In subsection (4) of this section, the designated county surveyor shall collect the applicable subdivision or partition plat check fee, and any travel expenses incurred, as established by the designated county surveyor’s board of commissioners. The subdivision or partition plat check fee and other expenses must be paid by the subdivider, partitioner or declarant prior to approval of the subdivision or partition plat by the designated county surveyor.

(6) Nothing in this section prohibits a city, county or special district from requiring engineering review and approval of a subdivision plat to ensure compliance with state and local subdivision requirements that relate to matters other than survey adequacy.

(7) Granting approval or withholding approval of a final subdivision or partition plat under this section by the county surveyor, the county assessor or the governing body of a city or county, or a designee of the governing body, is not a land use decision or a limited land use decision, as defined in ORS 197.015 (Definitions for ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and ORS 197A.300 to 197A.325). [Amended by 1955 c.31 §2; 1955 c.756 §14; 1957 c.688 §1; 1963 c.285 §1; 1971 c.419 §1; 1979 c.824 §1; 1989 c.772 §15; 1991 c.763 §16; 1993 c.453 §1; 1993 c.702 §6; 1999 c.1018 §6; 2003 c.381 §1; 2005 c.239 §1; 2005 c.399 §12a]

Notes of Decisions

Due process require­ments for granting of variances are identical regardless of whether variance is area variance or use variance. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Approval of tentative plan under subdivision ordinance is final order reviewable in writ of review pro­ceed­ing. Bienz v. City of Dayton, 29 Or App 761, 566 P2d 904 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Owner of parcel unlawfully conveyed without having been parti­tioned could not unilaterally seek to parti­tion parcel from remainder of original prop­erty remaining in separate ownership. Kilian v. City of West Linn, 88 Or App 242, 744 P2d 1314 (1987)

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.